From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-08 16:32:36
Edward Diener wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>
>> What is the point of having a library standard anyway?
>>
>
> I have always viewed the importance of a library standard as a means
> of specifying that an implementation which supports the language must
> provide the library also.
> This automatically creates a common set of
> functionality for all implementations of the language. I view that as a
> good thing ...
no disagreement there. My question is how to guarentee this. There
are at least two options:
a) tweak the library to fit the compiler and meet the standard
b) all of the following:
i) requiring a language conforming implementation for the library
ii) provide a reference implementation of the library.
My view is that the current situation tolerates and perhaps
encourages the a) while creating a huge amount of work
in creating the standards. I believe that this work would
better be invested elsewhere. Like actually bringing the
compiler(s) to conformance.
>but it certainly does not mean that the library standard must
> be the only library which works for nearly all implementations, as
> Boost has shown.
The library standard doesn't "work". It can't. It's not code. The
standard doesn't include an implemenation. And once we
have a reference implementation which can be compiled on a
language conformant compiler, what is gained from the work
required to add it to the standard?
Robert Ramey